Are you claiming that Google saw the direction via Rubin (who worked at Apple in the 90-ties), or via Schmidt, who was on the board of Apple 2006-2009? Or maybe it was one big coordinated scam planned more than 20 years ago, possibly with Samsung's involvement?

Well that's obvious really...Andy was locked in Carbonite or something for 11? years then started Android in 2003...then Schmidt and Google bought Android in 05...keeping Rubin then Schmidt using I guess all the charm in the world somehow got Apple to invite him to the board in 2006...then the iPhone was released in 2007...then Google using decades of insider knowledge still took a year to steal iOS and make a direct 1:1 copy of it (a 1:1 copy that looks completely different and hardly functions the same) and yea...today is today....hence the fact that they STOLE!!!! Android from Apple...or Oracle...or both who knows depends who you ask...and yea...infringe = stolen (unless it's Apple) inspire = stolen (unless it's Apple)

Stolen is definitely the wrong word but no one cares....unless it's Apple.

I admit that for a while I liked the mantra, or the sound of it. But, in recent 2-3 years, I have started to doubt seriously Google's intention. I think it is just a cover for whatever evil Google desires to do. As of now, I consider Google to BE the Evil.

His years at Apple, then General Magic were between 1989-1992 and 1992-1995.

Steve Jobs was not at Apple from early 1985 to late 1996.

So Andy and Steve never crossed paths at Apple.

I don't know that this has any bearing on the patent or the ruling...

You gotta be kidding me. Why does Jobs have to be at Apple in order for Andy Rubin to have borrowed from them?

So you're saying the fact Andy Rubin worked at Apple as a junior engineer, under the supervision and alongside the two senior engineers whose names are on Patent '263, at the very same time period Patent '263 was actually being developed, and that Android may have infringed Patent '263 is pure coincidence?

I wonder how many people here are programmers? I've been a programmer since the early 80's and worked for several firms. I've been in the situation where I'm facing a problem and trying to figure out a solution, and then realizing that problem was solved by the previous company I worked for. Should I use their solution and save time? Or should I come up with a new solution from scratch?

I got in serious $hit from an employer once because I copied the previous company's solution. I made a note in my "to-do" list that I only implemented their solution to save time and that it would need to be re-written before the software could go into production. Senior staff noticed this and were not happy with me. Even though I planned on re-writing the code, and it was only a temporary use (to save time on getting the project going), they said the possibility that the code could have gone out before the offending section was actually re-written makes it too risky to do what I had done.

And they were right. Any programmers here will know what I'm talking about. You quickly write a routine that needs optimization, but during testing it never causes any issues. Eventually it gets put further down the priority list and at some point the software gets released with a time-bomb waiting to go off.

I kept my job, but learned a valuable lesson.

I find it very likely Andy Rubin borrowed from concepts he learned while at Apple. The real question is whether he did it intentionally (took a shortcut) or un-intentionally (he knew of a solution, but couldn't link it to his time at Apple or working with certain people).

Based on my experience as a programmer, I find it hard to believe he did it by accident. I can still recall solutions to problems that I worked on 20 years ago. Once you have a "breakthrough" it's something you tend to remember.

I think Apple needs to continue to take the fight to the handset makers. They can sue Moto maybe but suing Google directly will be much more difficult since they don't sell anything that can be blocked by the ITC aside from Nexus. Oracle on the other hand would only be looking for damages and licensing fees which ultimately doesn't help Apple all that much.

Apple could have sued Google directly at any time. People use the ITC to put additional pressure on a party for a quick settlement to a federal lawsuit usually filed at the same time, but being able to ban a product isn't necessary. Apple likely hasn't sued Google directly for strategic reasons. Probably because Apple still relies on many of Google's services, like Maps.

I for one think Apple should take a more Microsoft like approach. Namely, extract licensing payments. Apple's approach ultimately would lead to the same thing. No court is going to ban Android entirely at this point. The best Apple is going to get is 1) a big one time payout, and 2) a big licensing pay out. Taking a settlement now 1) is less costly, and 2) accomplishes the same thing by making Android more costly. Manufacturers will look for other alternatives to Android.

Apple needs to focus less on the lawsuits, and more on keeping its iOS system strong. The Microsoft Nokia combo is slowly but surely coming up with a decent product.

You gotta be kidding me. Why does Jobs have to be at Apple in order for Andy Rubin to have borrowed from them?

So you're saying the fact Andy Rubin worked at Apple as a junior engineer, under the supervision and alongside the two senior engineers whose names are on Patent '263, at the very same time period Patent '263 was actually being developed, and that Android may have infringed Patent '263 is pure coincidence?

I wonder how many people here are programmers? I've been a programmer since the early 80's and worked for several firms. I've been in the situation where I'm facing a problem and trying to figure out a solution, and then realizing that problem was solved by the previous company I worked for. Should I use their solution and save time? Or should I come up with a new solution from scratch?

I got in serious $hit from an employer once because I copied the previous company's solution. I made a note in my "to-do" list that I only implemented their solution to save time and that it would need to be re-written before the software could go into production. Senior staff noticed this and were not happy with me. Even though I planned on re-writing the code, and it was only a temporary use (to save time on getting the project going), they said the possibility that the code could have gone out before the offending section was actually re-written makes it too risky to do what I had done.

And they were right. Any programmers here will know what I'm talking about. You quickly write a routine that needs optimization, but during testing it never causes any issues. Eventually it gets put further down the priority list and at some point the software gets released with a time-bomb waiting to go off.

I kept my job, but learned a valuable lesson.

I find it very likely Andy Rubin borrowed from concepts he learned while at Apple. The real question is whether he did it intentionally (took a shortcut) or un-intentionally (he knew of a solution, but couldn't link it to his time at Apple or working with certain people).

Based on my experience as a programmer, I find it hard to believe he did it by accident. I can still recall solutions to problems that I worked on 20 years ago. Once you have a "breakthrough" it's something you tend to remember.

Did you copy the code directly or the method of.implementation blah blah blah?

Well that's obvious really...Andy was locked in Carbonite or something for 11? years then started Android in 2003...then Schmidt and Google bought Android in 05...keeping Rubin then Schmidt using I guess all the charm in the world somehow got Apple to invite him to the board in 2006...then the iPhone was released in 2007...then Google using decades of insider knowledge still took a year to steal iOS and make a direct 1:1 copy of it (a 1:1 copy that looks completely different and hardly functions the same) and yea...today is today....hence the fact that they STOLE!!!! Android from Apple...or Oracle...or both who knows depends who you ask...and yea...infringe = stolen (unless it's Apple) inspire = stolen (unless it's Apple)

Stolen is definitely the wrong word but no one cares....unless it's Apple.

Google's internal emails concerning Java seem pretty damning. The emails essential admit Google took Java without permission. That is why Google is fighting like hell to bury the emails. The Judge in the case also pretty much said if the emails are heard by a jury, Google probably is going to be paying a big settlement.

Google also has history of taking other's information as well. For instance, Yelp. To compete with Yelp, Google just took's Yelp's customer reviews and put them in Google Places.

Andy Rubin stole the basic idea for this *kind* of OS from Apple. Then he stole the code (Java/Davlik) for most of it from Oracle.

Andy is an equal opportunity thief.

I don't really know why anyone is surprised. He's on the record (through court release of documents) as to basically not giving a shit about the concept of IP and theft of same. He's just one of those guys that just thinks everything should be free to take for those that want to take it.

Stolen is definitely the wrong word but no one cares....unless it's Apple.

He sounds a little desperate and defensive today, doesn't he? Stolen, copied, infringing, it's all the same thing. Google is a criminal enterprise, and it's execs should feel pretty happy they've been able to buy their way out of jail so far, although, another one of those clearly criminal acts like the Internet drug sales and they may not get off so easy, as convicted repeat offenders

Are you qualified to say they "should" have at least one win by now? I'm no patent attorney, and I'm guessing you aren't either. This shit doesn't happen quickly, either way. And learn how to use the quote function without screwing it up.

Suing in federal court is a very slow process. That is why most plaintiff's suing for IP infringement claims also file a complaint with the ITC, which is a much quicker process. The ITC, however, can't award monetary damages. It can award a ban on the importation of infringing product. Companies like Apple file ITC complaints hoping they can get some leverage to settle the federal lawsuit in a favorable fashion.

Google's internal emails concerning Java seem pretty damning. The emails essential admit Google took Java without permission. That is why Google is fighting like hell to bury the emails. The Judge in the case also pretty much said if the emails are heard by a jury, Google probably is going to be paying a big settlement.

Google also has history of taking other's information as well. For instance, Yelp. To compete with Yelp, Google just took's Yelp's customer reviews and put them in Google Places.

It goes back well before that.

One of the worst things I've seen any dot com company do was Google's attempt to copy every printed work and put it online to make money from it - without the authors' permission. It just boggles my mind that they couldn't see anything wrong with that.

And then, after that was shot down, they tried to get Congress to rewrite the copyright laws to allow it.

Really dishonest company.

"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"Gatorguy 5/31/13

Why do you think patent infringement relies on copied code? Patent infringement doesn't rely on copied code. In fact, the patent in question has no code! The patent is on a method of performing real-time signal processing on serially transmitted data. If the method Google uses infringes on the claims of Apple's patent, then Android infringes, even if the code is different.

That said, I am no expert, and am not able to argue this point with certainty.

Copyright infringement != patent infringement. What you described is the former.

It is useless for sheep to pass laws outlawing carnivorism when the wolf is of a different mind.

They should have had at least one win by now. So far it's only a few preliminary decisions that have both given and taken away. Apparently the blatant copying is nowhere near as cut-and-dried as some have made it out to be.

NO, your interpretation is incorrect. It takes YEARS for patent cases to finish. Most of the cases that have been talked about over the past two years wont actually start until March! Then a couple more months for rulings, then add a couple years for appeals.

The fact Apple cases have not been dismissed like the HTC+S3 Graphics case, based on preliminary findings, means the cases are legit for the courts to deal with. We won't know how they really turn out until 2014 at least.

The impatience brought about by insta-commentary on the internet is just badly skewing your perception of what you think should have happened by now, compared to what is actually possible to have happened by now.

This ruling appeal win is HUGE in Apples favor. In the span of a few days the Android world went from smug and secure back to facing an engineering change nightmare and very significant judgement costs. Because with patents the wording is everything, and it is the pre-trial battles to define the wording that can make a case almost insta-win or insta-lose.

I still have to say that this is a huge exaggeration and misrepresentation of what that project was actually all about. .

I will agree it is not what Google said it was about. But Google has been getting good at making high-minded wonderful world statements, then using the press releases as cover while they run roughshod over other peoples IP.

Had Google stayed with the original public domain only digitization plan rather than trying to digitize everything and only pulling a copy if served with a legal request to do it I would agree with you. But they didn't. And as much as it makes searching for info easier, it does so in an illegal way all to often.

Why do you think patent infringement relies on copied code? Patent infringement doesn't rely on copied code. In fact, the patent in question has no code! The patent is on a method of performing real-time signal processing on serially transmitted data. If the method Google uses infringes on the claims of Apple's patent, then Android infringes, even if the code is different.

That said, I am no expert, and am not able to argue this point with certainty.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cyberzombie

Copyright infringement != patent infringement. What you described is the former.

No @Cyberzombie you have it backwards. If the code was the same it would be copyright infringement. The algorithm can be patent protected, and the code can be different as long as it is the same patented algorithm.

Unfortunately, the biggest obstacle Google faces isnt technological, but legal. Publishers are accusing Google of copyright infringement, and theyre demanding the company get individual permission from each publisher before it scans their books. So far, Google has resisted the demands, insisting that building such a search engine is a legal fair use under copyright law.

The suit contends that Google knew or should have known that the Copyright Act "required it to obtain authorization from the holders of the copyrights in these literary works before creating and reproducing digital copies of the works for its commercial use and for the use of others."

Google has said from the beginning that its program is covered by the "fair use" provision of the copyright law, which allows limited use of protected works. In a statement issued in response to the suit, Google also said its program respected copyrights.

Although it's not clear how in the world Google would think that fair use would allow them to copy entire works without permission.

That was (fortunately) shot down, so they went to Congress and tried to get permission to do it if they set up some kind of fund to reimburse authors via some kind of payment schedule that they dreamed up. They were going to allow for 'opt out', but an author who was not familiar with Google's scheme would have had their work included without permission.

But feel free to provide facts to refute that.

"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"Gatorguy 5/31/13

No @Cyberzombie you have it backwards. If the code was the same it would be copyright infringement. The algorithm can be patent protected, and the code can be different as long as it is the same patented algorithm.

The code can only infringe on a patent if the code itself was copied, not the implementation of a concept.

You are confusing copyright and patent. In a literal sense, copyright involves copying, but patent law involves invention and implementation of an "idea" which can be implemented in an number of ways, none involving copying in the literal sense, and yet can be illegal use of a patent.

Let's say that MVC had been patented as part of the SmallTalk language, then MVC could not be implemented unless licensed by the patent holder (say Xerox PARC).

You are confusing copyright and patent. In a literal sense, copyright involves copying, but patent law involves invention and implementation of an "idea" which can be implemented in an number of ways, none involving copying in the literal sense, and yet can be illegal use of a patent.

I get what you are saying but in this case it is one step removed because Google is not doing anything except open sourcing the code. Anyone who takes the code and does something commercial with it assumes responsibility for their own use of the code. I am only suggesting that Google has insulated themselves to a certain degree, making it difficult sue them except in the case of Oracle where the repurposing of actual code is alleged.

I get what you are saying but in this case it is one step removed because Google is not doing anything except open sourcing the code. Anyone who takes the code and does something commercial with it assumes responsibility for their own use of the code. I am only suggesting that Google has insulated themselves to a certain degree, making it difficult sue them except in the case of Oracle where the repurposing of actual code is alleged.

That is not correct.

Look up contributory infringement.

"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"Gatorguy 5/31/13

I get what you are saying but in this case it is one step removed because Google is not doing anything except open sourcing the code. Anyone who takes the code and does something commercial with it assumes responsibility for their own use of the code. I am only suggesting that Google has insulated themselves to a certain degree, making it difficult sue them except in the case of Oracle where the repurposing of actual code is alleged.

The reason Apple isn't suing Google is that even if Apple would win on grounds of contributory infringement, the amount Apple could sue for in damages would be dismally small. The pockets of those companies selling Android containing phones are in contrast, quite deep.

Oracle has Google over a bit of a different barrel because of Java licensing, and somehow in that case the judge seems to be allowing Google ad revenue as being vulnerable to damages. Apple doesn't have that kind of direct connection to the Google Golden Goose to try to leverage.

Well that's obvious really...Andy was locked in Carbonite or something for 11? years then started Android in 2003...then Schmidt and Google bought Android in 05...keeping Rubin then Schmidt using I guess all the charm in the world somehow got Apple to invite him to the board in 2006...then the iPhone was released in 2007...then Google using decades of insider knowledge still took a year to steal iOS and make a direct 1:1 copy of it (a 1:1 copy that looks completely different and hardly functions the same) and yea...today is today....hence the fact that they STOLE!!!! Android from Apple...or Oracle...or both who knows depends who you ask...and yea...infringe = stolen (unless it's Apple) inspire = stolen (unless it's Apple)

Stolen is definitely the wrong word but no one cares....unless it's Apple.

Come on. Google has exhibited a pattern of not really giving a damn about other people's IP, whether it is Apple, Sun, or some little company in Kenya. As sleazy as Schmidt is, the company seems to have gone even further down the road to "evil" under Page.

The point of taking patent cases to the ITC is that it can block products relatively quickly, rather than fighting for years and getting either nothing or a vindication ruling 4 years later that doesn't matter anymore.

That's why Apple (and Motorola, Microsoft, etc) is taking cases to the ITC. But Apple is also suing in regular courts, and once it builds up enough wins (especially important ones like this 263 patent), it could sue Google for damages, if Google doesn't give up on copying Apple's stuff.

It actually seems more likely that Oracle will win enough of a case against Google to make the future of Android a dead end, converting it either to Java, or alternatively, Google backing away from a JVM design and jumping to phones that run web apps like the Chrome OS.

And I do agree that at some point Google can and will be sued by Apple.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gatorguy

They should have had at least one win by now. So far it's only a few preliminary decisions that have both given and taken away. Apparently the blatant copying is nowhere near as cut-and-dried as some have made it out to be.

If you can see how divided technical experts are on whether Apple has a strong case or not, imagine how much more difficult this is for non-technical judges and juries....???

Quote:

Originally Posted by chabig

Still, there is nothing to prevent an injunction against the distribution of Android itself.

So far Apple is trying to block the importation of offending devices into the U.S. and other countries. I don't think the ITC can put an injunction in place when both Apple and Google are U.S. companies.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jason98

I am not a patent expert, but this looks like a bad and questionable patent to me.

But what about the essential UI innovations that define the iPhone, and also made Android so successful and interchangeable with the Apple's original products?
I mean multi-touch gestures, inertial scrolling, page transitions?
They covered by Apple's IP, aren't they? If so why can't they win based on these patents?
Are they considered prior art, invalid?

Apple has won on some IU points, such as inertial scrolling, and Samsung has had to remove such for importation into Australia. Court orders have forced other modifications to continue importing Samsung into parts of Europe.

While all this is going on both Samsung and Amazon have done a fork of Android version 2.2 which has, in effect, deprived Google of some of the data mining they need to support their advertising model...which negates the whole purpose of giving away Android.

Apple, by attacking the weaker HTC, has improved their odds of a win. Once there is a win on '363 with HTC, Apple has a defacto win on all Android imports and can effect an immediate shut down of all imports.

Then they can go butcher the big sow over at Google.

Apple is making several statements by all this legal action:
1. Don't mess with Apple.
2. It doesn't matter if you are making an OS or including an offending OS in your product; don't think you are safe from costly litigation with Apple if the OS is tainted.
3. Apple knows that enterprise users are watching all this unfold, and if they get jittery about Android, they will back away from using it in their plans.

"That (the) world is moving so quickly that iOS is already amongst the older mobile operating systems in active development today." — The Verge

Come on. Google has exhibited a pattern of not really giving a damn about other people's IP, whether it is Apple, Sun, or some little company in Kenya. As sleazy as Schmidt is, the company seems to have gone even further down the road to "evil" under Page.

We have very different definitions of evil I guess...evil to me are the diamond brokers and oil executives purposefully polluting, harrassing and terrorizing locals to get at their land.

Nothing that Apple, Google, etc has done would ever fall under "Evil" in my eyes. Ever...at least not yet.

Andy Rubin stole the basic idea for this *kind* of OS from Apple. Then he stole the code (Java/Davlik) for most of it from Oracle.

Andy is an equal opportunity thief.

I don't really know why anyone is surprised. He's on the record (through court release of documents) as to basically not giving a shit about the concept of IP and theft of same. He's just one of those guys that just thinks everything should be free to take for those that want to take it.

you can't steal the idea for an OS...don't be naive. Full touch OSes aren't even Apple's idea...neither are full capacitive touch OSes...in fact, the IDEA of a phone like the iPhone isn't Apple's idea. (not saying they STOLE!!!! the idea from anyone btw)

And THE code for Android was not stolen from Oracle (or even said to be stolen from Oracle) Oracle is arguing that some of the code in Android is theirs...none of which has been proven yet but something tells me anyone but Apple is guilty before innocent.

One of the worst things I've seen any dot com company do was Google's attempt to copy every printed work and put it online to make money from it - without the authors' permission. It just boggles my mind that they couldn't see anything wrong with that.

And then, after that was shot down, they tried to get Congress to rewrite the copyright laws to allow it.

Really dishonest company.

I honestly don't have a problem with Google trying to do that. Part of my reason is I tend to respect patent law more than copyright law. The main reason I do that is because corporate lobbyists have kept the patent system sort of in check. A patent term is 20 years, compared to over a hundred years for a copyright. If you think about it the discrepancy is odd, considering patented ideas have to satisfy a much higher standard than a copyrighted idea to receive protection. The difference is corporate lobbyists have essentially screwed the public with copyrights.

Moreover, It isn't illegal to copy a book you legally possess provided your purpose is not commercial and you don't substantially deprive the copyright holder of money. The concept is similar to when Sony first allowed a person to copy a TV show without the copyright holder's permission. The Supreme Court held that was legal (even though Sony was making money indirectly off the copyright holders work).

Google set up shop by me at the University of Michigan and was largely copying text books, many of them being out of print for years. It is a shame Google failed to continue to fight that battle out, as the public was really deprived by Google throwing in the towel (especially since it had a good chance of winning the fight in the end). Imagine the information contained in all those textbooks, many not used. Imagine being able to search them from home.

More importantly, Google wasn't allowing people to just read the books in their entirety. It was indexing them so that people could search for topics within the books. Again, many of these books were out of print. People would have been able to read small sections of the books, and than been able to find out how to get a hold of the book itself. Books in the public domain would have been freely available. That would have been an incredibly useful tool. The copyright holders probably would have made money they otherwise wouldn't have made, and Google would have further entrenched its search business.

The main objections to Google's proposed service was that Google would be the only party that had the data. So, competitors like Microsoft's Bing would be at a disadvantage. I didn't see the problem with that considering Google spend a lot of time copying and indexing the works. Microsoft could have done the same thing. It would have taken a long time to catch up.

The difference with Oracle and Apple, however, is Google is actually using the other companies IP to harm the other companies. Google is using Java, but violating the license by making it incompatible with other versions of Java. This violates the write once run everywhere philosophy of Java. Moreover, Google smells in regards to Apple 1) because of it gaining inside knowledge while Google's CEO was sitting on Apple's Board, and 2) dramatically altered Android to emulate iOS after the iPhone came out.

And THE code for Android was not stolen from Oracle (or even said to be stolen from Oracle) Oracle is arguing that some of the code in Android is theirs...none of which has been proven yet but something tells me anyone but Apple is guilty before innocent.

What more proof do you need than Google admitting it in internal emails?

Nothing that Apple, Google, etc has done would ever fall under "Evil" in my eyes. Ever...at least not yet.

Do you honestly think a slogan like "Don't Be Evil" is referring to Hilter type actions? One of Google's founders gave the example of Google separating its search results from its advertising as an example of Google not being evil. So, it seems Google's standard for being evil falls a bit lower than the blood diamonds sort of evil you are referring to.

Based on the standard offered by Google itself, I'd argue trying to take one's lively hood by using his work to compete against him might be considered evil. Certainly more evil than not separating search from advertisements.

Do you honestly think a slogan like "Don't Be Evil" is referring to Hilter type actions? One of Google's founders gave the example of Google separating its search results from its advertising as an example of Google not being evil. So, it seems Google's standard for being evil falls a bit lower than the blood diamonds sort of evil you are referring to.

Based on the standard offered by Google itself, I'd argue trying to take one's lively hood by using his work to compete against him might be considered evil. Certainly more evil than not separating search from advertisements.

The reason Apple isn't suing Google is that even if Apple would win on grounds of contributory infringement, the amount Apple could sue for in damages would be dismally small. The pockets of those companies selling Android containing phones are in contrast, quite deep.

Oracle has Google over a bit of a different barrel because of Java licensing, and somehow in that case the judge seems to be allowing Google ad revenue as being vulnerable to damages. Apple doesn't have that kind of direct connection to the Google Golden Goose to try to leverage.

Willful infringement allows a Court to award Treble damages. Apple's has been arguing to Courts that a person lost to Android is likely ever lost to Apple.

If you think about it in those terms, Google could be on the hook to Apple for big dollars because Apple would argue its damages are 1) lost hardware sales, and 2) lost App store sales. Apple might loss with that argument.

Apple could also argue for a big piece of the rumored 10 dollars a year for each Android device Google is rumored to make.

Apple relies to heavily on Google's mapping services right now to risk Google pulling out of its agreement with Apple to provide those services. Apple has bought a lot of mapping software companies. Apple has to working on getting rid of Google as its map providers. It has bought at least three map companies.